NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: nht92-1.15OpenDATE: December 22, 1992 FROM: Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senator, U.S. Senate TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/93 from John Womack to Paul David Wellstone (A40; VSA 103) TEXT: I have been contacted by several constituents of mine, Ms. Tutti Sherlock and Ms. Mary Bock, about the problem they are having with school bus regulations as applied to Head Start programs. Both Ms. Bock and Ms. Sherlock believe that the regulations that applied to school buses should not apply to Head Start transportation. One reason they cite is the confusion that a yellow school-bus-colored Head Start van may confuse students and parents, especially those to whom English is a second language. For this reason, Head Start vans are painted a different color than normal school buses. Ms. Bock and Ms. Sherlock also object to the requirement that Head Start vans be equipped with stop arms and special stop lights, because the vans drop children at the curb. Head Start students, therefore, do not need to cross the street in front of the van. A letter to Mr. Charles Pekow sent in 1985 by Mr. Jeffrey Miller of your office states that Head Start standards are up to the state's discretion. I have enclosed this letter for your review. In this light, these constituents are asking that you inform Mr. Chuck Anderson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation that federal regulations do not, at this time, require school bus manufacturers to equip Head Start buses as school buses, unless the grantee so requests. I would appreciate it if you would review this matter and advise me of your findings. Please direct your response to Connie Lewis, a member of my staff, at the following address: 2550 University Avenue W., #10ON St. Paul, MN 55114 612/645-0323 Thank you for your assistance. |
|
ID: 07-000301OpenMr. Patrick W. Reynolds 815 Florida Avenue Hagerstown, MD 21740 Dear Mr. Reynolds: This is in response to your fax of January 11, 2007, and your conversations with George Stevens in our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliances Import and Certification Division and Otto Matheke in this office, requesting an interpretation of any regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning your manufacture of a motorcycle. You explained in your letter that you are attempting to have a vehicle identification number (VIN) assigned from the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) to a custom-made motorcycle which you built. The MVA has informed you that you need to submit a manufacturers statement of origin for the motor cycle frame guaranteeing structural stability of the motorcycle frame, and that you need to be listed with NHTSA as per USDOT. You ask what NHTSA regulations apply to the manufacture of motorcycle frames. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. They must also ensure that their vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are free of safety-related defects. There currently is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to a motorcycle frame. While there are FMVSSs that apply to completed motorcycles, NHTSA does not guarantee the structural stability of motorcycle frames, nor do we directly regulate the physical manufacturing of motorcycle frames. NHTSA does require manufacturers of motor vehicles to identify themselves to the agency by way of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. A copy of Part 566 is enclosed. In addition, the States regulate the use of vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. As you already know, Maryland has its own regulations on this subject, and you are of course bound by them as well. I am also enclosing a copy of our July 2006 publication, Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:566 d.5/25/07 |
2007 |
ID: 1983-1.16OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/08/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Talbott Engineers Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 11, 1983, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. The specific question you asked was: Does S4.1.2 require that multi-purpose passenger cars, trucks, and buses meet the effective wiped area requirements, or does S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars? The requirements of section S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars. Standard No. 104's section S2, Application, provides that the standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The requirements of certain sections of the standard, however, only apply to some of those vehicle types. Section S4.1.2, Wiped Area, provides: When tested wet in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, and C of the windshield. . . . [Emphasis added] The above language limits the applicability of that specific requirement to passenger cars, and the section does not have any other requirements applicable to other vehicle types. We would note that your letter used the term "multi-purpose passenger car" rather than multipurpose passenger vehicle, the term used in the standard. We assume that your use of the former term was a typographical error, and we note it only to avoid any possible misunderstanding. We have enclosed a copy of the most recent revision of Standard No. 104, as you requested. ENC. TALBOTT ENGINEERS INC. January 11, 1983 Legal Counsel NHTSA U.S. Dept. of Transportation FMVSS 104 Dear Sirs: I would like the legal interpretation of FMVSS 104, S4.1.2, Wiped Area. Specifically, my question is "Does S4.1.2 require that multi-purpose passenger cars, trucks, and buses meet the effective wiped area requirements, or does S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars." In addition, could you please send the latest revision of FMVSS 104. I am working in behalf of a concerned client with a large commercial fleet. Expediting your response will be appreciated. Terry D. Day, P.E. |
|
ID: nht74-1.42OpenDATE: 06/20/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Blue Bird Body Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: In your letter of May 30, 1974, you ask whether a rear lighting configuration intended for your 1975 vehicles, based upon a proposal in Docket No. 69-19, would meet the current requirement that stop lamps be "as far apart as possible." The photographs you enclose show that the intent of the proposed S8.10 has been met by providing a separation distance between turn signal and stop lamps that is 5 inches or more, and by placing the stop lamp so that its optical axis is inboard of a vertical longitudinal plane passing through the optical axis of the taillamps. Although it is obviously "practicable" for you to retain the stop lamps in their present location, we consider that the reasons you wish to introduce the change support a determination of practicability under the current requirements, even though the proposal remains under consideration and may not be adopted. Yours truly, ATTACH. BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY May 30, 1974 Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U. S. Dept. of Transportation, NHTSA Dear Mr. Dyson: In the Federal Register Vol. 37, No 206, dated October 25, 1972, appeared a proposed change for FMVSS 108. This was identified as Docket 69-19, Notice 3. In paragraph S8.10 of this notice NHTSA proposed to physically separate the stop lamp, tail lamp and the turn signal functions. Blue Bird Body Company concurs with this proposed change and in fact, we would like to incorporate it into our 1975 model buses. The attached photographs show our current stop lamp location and our proposed stop lamp location. As you can see from the photographs, our proposed lighting configuration would physically separate the stop lamp and turn signal lamps by placing the back-up lamps between them. Although we believe this lighting scheme will provide safer vehicles because of greater discrimination between the stop lamp and turn signal functions, we are concerned with the current requirement of FMVSS 108, table 2, which says that the stop lamps must be ". . . as far apart as practical." Certainly NHTSA must be of the opinion that such a lighting configuration will provide safer vehicles or they would not have made this proposal. Therefore, it is our opinion that our proposed 1975 lighting configuration meets the intent of the current regulations as well as the proposed future regulation and request your approval of this change. Thank you for your consideration of this request and your early reply. Yours very truly, W. G. Milby -- Project Engineer c Dave Phelps; Jim Moorman |
|
ID: 004593-asOpenMr. Mac M. Yousry Managing Director Global Vehicle Services Corp. 1892 North Main Street Orange, CA 92865 Dear Mr. Yousry: This responds to your letter asking whether the GV11, a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less, mounted on a truck chassis, and containing certain special features that enable off-road operation, qualifies as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). Based upon the information supplied to this agency and for the reasons explained below, we would consider the GV11 to be an MPV under 49 CFR 571.3. You have requested confidentiality of some information regarding the specifications of your vehicle, and we have granted that confidentiality. As the confidential information was not required to answer your question, we will not discuss it in this letter. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe the vehicle would be classified for the purposes of our safety standards. The term multipurpose passenger vehicle is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. You state that the GV11 is designed to carry 10 persons or less, thus meeting the first part of the definition. You also state that the GV11 is mounted on a truck chassis, thus fulfilling the second part. Based upon this description, it appears to us that this vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. We note that while your letter also described certain confidential features that you believe would enable off-road operation, it was not necessary to analyze those features to make our determination. Thus, we make no opinion in this letter as to whether those features would impact the classification of the GV11 under the FMVSS. If you have any additional questions, contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:571 d.12/18/06 |
2006 |
ID: nht95-4.54OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 12, 1995 FROM: Charles A. Grandy -- Baker and Daniels TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as Applied to Automobile Wheel Manufacturers ATTACHMT: 1/30/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Charles A. Grandy (A44; Std. 110; Std. 211) TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to submit a formal inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") regarding the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards contained in 49 C.F.R. @ 571 ("Safety Standards") to autom obile wheel manufacturers. Specifically, this letter seeks confirmation that automobile wheel manufacturers are not required to certify that wheels they manufacture comply with any Safety Standards. As you know, 49 U.S.C. @ 30115 requires that a "manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall certify to the distributor or dealer at delivery that the vehicle or equipment complies with applicable motor vehicle safet y standards prescribed under this chapter." (Emphasis added). Unless a motor vehicle safety standard applies, however, this certification provision does not come into effect. Based on the applicable regulations and our conversation on October 10, 1995, the certification requirement does not appear to apply to automobile wheel manufacturers. As we discussed on October 10, 1995, and by way of background information, our firm represents an automobile wheel manufacturer that exports wheels to certain automobile manufacturers in the United States to be used in the production of passenger cars . The manufacturer does not produce truck wheels, wheels for sale in the aftermarket or such items as wheel nuts, wheel discs or hub caps. Instead, the manufacturer produces automobile wheels for use exclusively in the OEM market to be used for the pro duction of passenger vehicles. Our question is limited to the delivery of such wheels. In our recent conversation we concluded that automobile wheels, as such, are not subject to any of the Safety Standards. We discussed specifically the application of the Safety Standards described at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.110 and 49 C.F.R. @ 571.211. Upon review, neither of these provisions appears to apply to automobile wheels and we find no other Safety Standards applicable to automobile wheels. Accordingly, automobile wheel manufacturers should not be subject to the certification requirement describe d at 49 U.S.C. @ 30115 when delivering such automobile wheels. Please review these issues on an expedited basis and confirm, if you will, our stated conclusions. You may direct all correspondence to the undersigned at the above-referenced address. If you should have any questions or comments, or need any additi onal information, please feel free to contact the undersigned directly at (317) 237-1400. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. |
|
ID: nht95-4.58OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 16, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical, Federal Mogul Corporation TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN C. GOLDEN TO JOHN WOMACK TEXT: Dear Mr. Golden: This responds to your request for an interpretation asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a "Lightman," for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the an swer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product. You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are conce rned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, "Does the mounting of one of these devices . . . take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?" As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously-certified warning devices. There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy en closed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on hi s or her equilateral triangle. As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number: 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1790 We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht95-7.23OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 16, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical, Federal Mogul Corporation TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN C. GOLDEN TO JOHN WOMACK TEXT: Dear Mr. Golden: This responds to your request for an interpretation asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a "Lightman," for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product. You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are concerned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, "Does the mounting of one of these devices . . . take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?" As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously-certified warning devices. There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy enclosed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on his or her equilateral triangle. As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number: 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1790 We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht93-7.35OpenDATE: October 22, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Head, Safety Affairs and Operations, NAO Engineering, Safety Center, General Motors Corporation TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from Milford R. Bennett (Signature by Richard F. Humphrey) to H. M. Smolkin (OCC-9189) TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 7, 1993, to Howard Smolkin concerning information labels for vehicles covered by NHTSA temporary exemptions (49 CFR Part 555). Paragraph 555.9(b) requires that a windshield or side window label containing an advisory statement be affixed securely to each exempted vehicle. You have concluded that this label is intended to notify prospective purchasers that the vehicle has been exempted from compliance with certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because General Motors (GM) does not intend to sell its recently exempted GMEV, it believes that it is not required to place the label on its vehicles. Section 123(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1410(b)) specifies that "(t)he Secretary may require that written notification of (an) exemption be delivered to the dealer and first purchaser for purposes other than the resale of such exempted motor vehicle in such manner as he deems appropriate." NHTSA chose to exercise this discretionary power through promulgating paragraph 555.9(b) requiring windshield and side window labels on exempted vehicles, commenting that "(t)he window label appears to be the most appropriate way of providing written notification of exemptions to dealers and first purchasers" (37 FR 25534). We read in The New York Times on October 14, 1993, that GM will build 50 Impacts (presumably the exempted GMEVs) "and lend them for two to four weeks to 1,000 drivers around the country over the next two years, with the help of 14 utilities." If these cars are made available through GM's dealer network, then we believe that the label should nevertheless be provided even if the vehicle is not sold, and that it should remain affixed until the vehicle is first lent or leased through the dealer. Although subsequent users of the GMEV will not have access to the temporary label in order to evaluate the risk they assume by accepting temporary use of a nonconforming motor vehicle, the permanently affixed exemption certification label will furnish this information should they care to consult it. |
|
ID: 9189Open Mr. Milford R. Bennett, Head Dear Mr. Bennett: This is in reply to your letter of October 7, 1993, to Howard Smolkin concerning information labels for vehicles covered by NHTSA temporary exemptions (49 CFR Part 555). Paragraph 555.9(b) requires that a windshield or side window label containing an advisory statement be affixed securely to each exempted vehicle. You have concluded that this label is intended to notify prospective purchasers that the vehicle has been exempted from compliance with certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because General Motors (GM) does not intend to sell its recently exempted GMEV, it believes that it is not required to place the label on its vehicles. Section 123(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1410(b)) specifies that "[t]he Secretary may require that written notification of [an] exemption be delivered to the dealer and first purchaser for purposes other than the resale of such exempted motor vehicle in such manner as he deems appropriate." NHTSA chose to exercise this discretionary power through promulgating paragraph 555.9(b) requiring windshield and side window labels on exempted vehicles, commenting that "[t]he window label appears to be the most appropriate way of providing written notification of exemptions to dealers and first purchasers" (37 FR 25534). We read in The New York Times on October 14, 1993, that GM will build 50 Impacts (presumably the exempted GMEVs) "and lend them for two to four weeks to 1,000 drivers around the country over the next two years, with the help of 14 utilities." If these cars are made available through GM's dealer network, then we believe that the label should nevertheless be provided even if the vehicle is not sold, and that it should remain affixed until the vehicle is first lent or leased through the dealer. Although subsequent users of the GMEV will not have access to the temporary label in order to evaluate the risk they assume by accepting temporary use of a nonconforming motor vehicle, the permanently affixed exemption certification label will furnish this information should they care to consult it. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:10/22/93 |
1993 |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.